Topic: Paramount hath spoken

[Harry]

I'm still around and reading the messages.  Just been a little caught up in some things going on....

[NannerSlug]

in the end die hard, its still matching dots. either you are matching the dots or you are not. its really not that hard of a concept to grasp - the only thing which makes it even valid in the computer sfc game is when people are too busy paying attention to combat that an em shift happens.. hence what i said about the computer being able to do it.

either way you can make a case where the computer can do the calculations. i simply believe that the size, speed and distance of the ship SHOULD matter when calcuating a firing solution - not just if the distance and dots are matched up.

(oh yeah, heya harry.. thanks for droping by. )

[Victor1st]

Hey Nanner, you'll be glad to know i'm back.  So you can now openly trash me with no worries about me being in hospital and the whole guilt trip thing.

  LMAO 

[kortez]

I don't want to see ANY trash talk or accusations of it where none exists.  I am serious.  All such cases will cease and desist right now.

People ... behave yourselves.

[Sirgod]

RGR that Kortez.

Stephen

[Rod ONeal]

There isn't enough power on a ship to fly as fast as you want, arm all weapons, and simply match the dots on EW. Add to that the different arming cycles of weapons, and possible ship class and power curve differences. Whether you're fighting a droner, a plasma ship, or a carrier, etc. Now you have a situation that requires thought, planning, and tactics. After you've got all of that thought through, let's add EM to the equation, and whether or not your opponent is overloading or not. No "dots" on the UI to deal with all of these variables.
AV makes no difference in todays military, and it won't in the 23rd or 24th century either. All that matters now is the ability to "lock-on" to your target. When you hear that "tone in your headset" the fact that your enemy is at a 90 deg. angle to you is of no conciquence. You'd better have something to break/degrade their lock-on or start performong some pretty "erratic maneuvers".

[NannerSlug]

nice example rob, but i am talking about the game - and it IS a matter of matching 6 dots. thats it.

does it involve power managment (in the game)? yes - but again, if you are wanting to use the same analogy of computers using this or that - then ask your self why there isnt a button to simply "match ew" as there would be with any ship in the future (or today's tech.. think wild weasel fighters).. and why does it take so much "energy" to do "ew."

Regarding power managment - thank you for bringing that out.. that is another good thing about sfc3 - in sfc3 i can allocate what i want where i want to do it. in sfc2, i cannot.

in sfc2 - every system screams for energy (And the impulse engines and warp drives are together - which is not cannon). the only way for power managment is to turn it off. now.. in sfc3, while it is not to my level of satisfaction, i can at least under power (or over power) weapons like i want to.

like trek cannon - impulse engines and warp drives are seperate. movment should be seperate from your warp core (which powers the ship).. i understand what you are trying to get at with movment and what not, but there are other ways to temper this. trust me, i know and am doing it with my mod.

the one thing that sfc3 could have done (again, more detail) - is to make individual hard points capable of mass restrictions.. that would give the game more tactical depth and more flavor for each vessel (and allowed for more variants)..

lastly, this is what i was talking about - we all have our differences of opinion. right or wrong - we are going to have to agree to disagree. its that simple.

i like the progressive and common sense direction sfc3 headed (and achieved to a degree - but fell short of keeping or adding in stuff) - you dont. its just a difference of opinion what type of game we all like to play..

[Rod ONeal]

I was just talking about EW vs. AV. I brought power management into it just to make the point that you do not just match the dots, that was all. The exact implementation (how much power it uses, etc) is how it is, as a matter of game balance. If it was real cheap, power wise, you would be able to match the dots and that would make it pretty useless. Wild weasels (I assume that you are talking about real military F4 wild weasels and F111E EW fighters, etc.) use a bunch of power to jam the enemy tracking systems. They don't tell you where they are so you can fly at a 90 deg. angle to them. Plus we're talking Starships, not fighters that juke around the sky. Another reason that I think AV is a bad concept for a Trek game.

This isn't SFC2 vs. SFC3. It's what should be in a new game. I would definately like to see more indepth power management too. 

I'm not disagreeing with you just for the sake of it. If we are to have a new game that uses some sort of "hit modifier" AV isn't a very realistic way to do it. EW makes much more sense and that's why I'm mentioning it. Just my $.02.

[NannerSlug]

could i see EW in a game? sure, but again, for me - it makes common sense that the size of the ship, speed of the ship (or even the change in speed) need to also be figured into the equation.

so maybe we are debating a false dicotomy? why not have both? but i think there need to be changes in both. if ew can be figured out besides just matching dots into somthing real - like even real ew - then maybe we can have a discussion.. (real ew involves various things im sure you know - like false radar images and things of that nature)

but i believe that it would be beneficial that the size and speed of the vessel must figure into the firing solution. it must even in todays computers.. but here is another thing - today's computers (even in a computer game) can mute both.

[NuclearWessels]

Just to throw my $0.02Cdn in, and since we're talking about a new game (boy it's good ta see ya Harry!) my take would be a bit of both and a bit of neither.

If we're talking about future computer-based targetting systems (as dave leaps into unreality for a moment) I'd assume we're balancing two things: detecting/targetting the opponent while preventing them from getting a good shot at you.  So, perhaps the following:

(1) each type of ship has basic detection and evasion properties (not the best use of terminology, but ya get my drift) ,
these could be customized to a limited extent in dock by the acquisition of better hardware, software, and crew

(2) during combat, the energy signature and specific actions of the ship also make it easier/more difficult to target -- actively boosting your own targetting systems also makes you easier to target, as does firing weapons, the amount of power you have shoved into the shields would make you more/less visibile, the amount of impulse power you're throwing out, etc etc.   

As a captain, you're deciding what actions to take for a better lock on the enemy vs what kind of a target that will make you - I'd assume the computers are taking into account everything they can otherwise - with the added catch that of course you really don't know how good the other fella's systems/crew are.

The number and extent of the influencing factors is pretty much up for grabs, I wouldn't want to be the one writing the rule set on how all the different systems should interact tho

Anyway, hope that made sense (been a long day!)

dave

[Cleaven]

um, no.. matching 6 dots of "ew" is even less of a challenge for a computer than matching angular velocity. if you just went by ew - then you have a ship the size of a borg vessel (or space station) which could be missed by a photon at the range of 4 (or less in some cases).

calculating ship movment (or even changes in ship movment and size - things that sfc3 do) are improvments.

im sure you disagree. at that point, i think we just need to leave it at we agree to disagree.

Ummm no, the computer would have to decide what to take the power away from in order to raise the power going to the EW. Now that is a challenge.  Your battle computer would have to be fully aware of your tactical plan to make sure it didn't take the power away form a system critical for your next attack. Of course how could an SFC3 computer get it wrong, it only has three sliders to play with, hardly a challenge for even a current day PC.

To force tactics to degenerate into a "get on his tail" situation is abysmal, not an improvement. So given that Ang Vel is dumb, forcing it into the centre of SFC tactics is mind boggling.

Even just to use a simple factor based on size would have been good, but it is totally ruined by and tactical misery of Ang Vel. Perhaps you would be better off making a WW1 mod, Snoopy Vs the Red Baron where Ang Vel was indeed a critical factor, but in the 24th Century?

At least there could have been an EW on/off switch. It would be on par with the misery imposed by three sliders anyway.

[FPF-DieHard]

could i see EW in a game? sure, but again, for me - it makes common sense that the size of the ship, speed of the ship (or even the change in speed) need to also be figured into the equation.

so maybe we are debating a false dicotomy? why not have both? but i think there need to be changes in both. if ew can be figured out besides just matching dots into somthing real - like even real ew - then maybe we can have a discussion.. (real ew involves various things im sure you know - like false radar images and things of that nature)

but i believe that it would be beneficial that the size and speed of the vessel must figure into the firing solution. it must even in todays computers.. but here is another thing - today's computers (even in a computer game) can mute both.

I kinda get Nanner's point now. The EW system from SFB is kinda "simple" in it's effect, it had to be as a board game.  Emulating a "real" EW system could be more easily done in a PC game as the calculation don't need to be done by people.

Thinking about it, 6 points of point is a LOT of energy, 50% more than what is needed to re-inforce a shield to absorb the hit of a Nuclear weapon.  The is a heck of a lot of power for jamming/counter-jamming.

Using the scale and speeds of SFB, even under sub-light system of SFC, I'm still not convince the size and speed of a target would be that much of a factor.  Range 8 is 80,000 KM, all ships would appear like a spec of dust at that range.

Again, nothing wrong with a game NOT being based on SFB, I just don't like the "half-assedness" that you get when you use part of the SFB ruleset.  A new game should either totally embrace SFB or totally abandon it. 

[NannerSlug]

exactly DH. with the computer EW can become a lot more imaginative..  thanks.

[FPF-DieHard]

exactly DH. with the computer EW can become a lot more imaginative..  thanks.

Curiously enough, as soon as i post something sort-of agreeing with Nanner, I loose 2 points af karma 

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Curiously enough, as soon as i post something sort-of agreeing with Nanner, I loose 2 points af karma 

Oh, that didn't have anything to do with Nanner.  That's just when my 12-hour clock for assigning karma rolled over, both on my real account and on my "bash Die Hard" account.

.
.
.
.

JUST KIDDING!

-S'Cipio

[_Rondo_GE The OutLaw]

nice example rob, but i am talking about the game - and it IS a matter of matching 6 dots. thats it.

does it involve power managment (in the game)? yes - but again, if you are wanting to use the same analogy of computers using this or that - then ask your self why there isnt a button to simply "match ew" as there would be with any ship in the future (or today's tech.. think wild weasel fighters).. and why does it take so much "energy" to do "ew."

Regarding power managment - thank you for bringing that out.. that is another good thing about sfc3 - in sfc3 i can allocate what i want where i want to do it. in sfc2, i cannot.

in sfc2 - every system screams for energy (And the impulse engines and warp drives are together - which is not cannon). the only way for power managment is to turn it off. now.. in sfc3, while it is not to my level of satisfaction, i can at least under power (or over power) weapons like i want to.

like trek cannon - impulse engines and warp drives are seperate. movment should be seperate from your warp core (which powers the ship).. i understand what you are trying to get at with movment and what not, but there are other ways to temper this. trust me, i know and am doing it with my mod.

the one thing that sfc3 could have done (again, more detail) - is to make individual hard points capable of mass restrictions.. that would give the game more tactical depth and more flavor for each vessel (and allowed for more variants)..

lastly, this is what i was talking about - we all have our differences of opinion. right or wrong - we are going to have to agree to disagree. its that simple.

i like the progressive and common sense direction sfc3 headed (and achieved to a degree - but fell short of keeping or adding in stuff) - you dont. its just a difference of opinion what type of game we all like to play..

Limme see...


Ship X uses 6 point of ECM and gets a shift of 2

Ship Y counters with 1 point of ECM and 3 points of ECCM and now has shift 1 to 1 plus 2 more point of power

then Ship X counters by going ECM 4 and evens up the subgame

Ship Y goes on attack run and feints to range 9.  He locks in his energy priorties, slows lsightly, he changeshis setting to 1ECM,1ECCM

Ship X fearing an overrun or a knife fight fires a number of his phasers and  damages YUs shield slightly; is satisfied when he sees Ship Y veer off but he blunders

Ship Y notices ships Xs ECM dropping...musta forgot to shut down his capacitor.  At range 10 he decides to have another go but this time X has no ECM and Y has shifted to 1 point of ECM and put the rest to his slightly damaged shield...another phaser exchange ensues but ship Y is at shift 1 and ship X is at shift 0 when they enage at range 7, fires his phasers and does excellent damage to player Xs shields... Ship X attempts to make it up by firing one of his heavy weaps and misses...


yup yup yup...it's all just connecting the dots...nuthin to it....

Ship X  

[NannerSlug]

yes it is that simple rondo.. especially if a "computer" was keeping track of ew.

[FPF-DieHard]

Curiously enough, as soon as i post something sort-of agreeing with Nanner, I loose 2 points af karma 

Oh, that didn't have anything to do with Nanner.  That's just when my 12-hour clock for assigning karma rolled over, both on my real account and on my "bash Die Hard" account.

.
.
.
.

JUST KIDDING!

-S'Cipio

it has dropped YET again

[_Rondo_GE The OutLaw]

yes it is that simple rondo.. especially if a "computer" was keeping track of ew.

Sure Nanner and at some point one could speculate that a computer could keep track of just about everything.  Your argument that degenerates so badly it devolves into there being no reason to abstract the game at all other than to fly around in space and see pretty lights.  Let a compter decide on weapons, let a computer decide on direcion, let a computer allocate energy, let a compiuter allocate whatever and tec...after all Big Blue beat it's first GrandMaster a few years back.

But using your own supposition there is nothing special about SFC3.  As I have already pointed out it fails as an abstraction because it has the Starship Captains will commanding mega mass ships like they where flying a jet and that technology 500 years from now would suddenly be incapable of handling angular velocity.  As a ,matter of fact I seriously doubt the ship behaviors in SFC3 will be anything like what a real starship, if it there ever is a real starship, would be.   Heck the whole idea of manned spaceflight is already at this point debatable, therefore everything in SFC3 could also be handled by a computer; your point brings out nothing new.   And as you say...it's a matter of preference.   Some people like to play chess and I guess some people like to play checkers. 

Which is why I have suggested that any future tactical game mght be advised to have two settings...one for the chess player and one for the checkers player in all of us.

It's not an either / or argument actually. 

[3dot14]

Dear me, is this yet another SFC2 v 3 discussion? (They seem to follow Nanner around )